Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1887-03-12
FANSWBR TO Mr.. OATR0N, SHOWING
2 HOW MUCH HE WAS MISTAKEN.

EDITOR INTELLIG ENCER: There
was a communication in your issue of
the 26th of February, from Mr.. C.. c.
Catrou, Of Higginsville, upon the sub
ject OF granting dramshops licenses by
the county court. Knowing that peo-
pie differ about everything, particular
ly upon matters OF a public nature, we
do not object to proper criticism upon
the action of the county court while we
were members of it. BIT when errone-
GUS statements and misrepresentation
are published to the people, that do III
~lnstice to the members of the old court,
We are like the Frenchman when he
nt;ag The American because he spoke
French badly. I'VE cannot stand
everything" The oD munication CON
wish 10 answer and correct. In do
iog'so we do not wish to say anything
about the propriety OF granting license,
except to express the opinion we have
always held, that dramshop keepers
Should comply with the requirements
pffaw nor do We wish to say anything
% effect the contest in Higginsvilie tor
an1f against the granting of licenses
sIhsre.
city is, under the law, a COLI
isBunity Of itself, and the citizens, ONLY,
have the right and must determine the
rQaestion themselves. We have no de-
sire to engage in the contest. We
| wish only TO answer some OF his state
fHehts concerning the granting of
Ificenses by the county court.
He says: ''The old county court was
rather too loose in the enforcement of
the dramshOp law. One case as an il
lustration: Some eighteen months ago
the court granted a dramshop license
to parties in this city (Higginsville) on
Il petition signed by about % persons.
My recollection is Is. How the memo
rable court ever arrived at the conclu-
sion that twenty-five. OF less, was a
majority of the resident, citizen, tax
payers of Il city Of the fourth class, Il
great railroad center and future county
seat, is nor than | can tell. | must
confess that | cannot in any way salts
LCtOry to myself account for the action
OF the our in the premises. So | will
leave the question with themselves and
the people of the county,
Being satisfied that Mr.. Catrou was
mistaken, we mailed him IL postal, re
guessing him TO inform us what peti-
ton he referred TO and when it was
presented TO Il e c0urt. But he did not
materiaiize and failed to answer. We
have since examined the petitions OF
iite in tie county clerks office for the
period commencing August, 1884, aud
ending January ist. 1856 This covers
the time mentioned. There is no sucI
petition as he mentions on Gle. Nc
such petition was presented to the cGurt
IN the last two and a-half years; MOI
was a license granted to any one il
AlgginsvlIic upon sEC g petition with
iii that time. Mr.. Catrou was giapl,
mistaken. which we think we will show
from the following facts: At tn,
March term OF cOGrt, in 1885, two par
ties from Higginsville applied for re
newals o! their licenses under petitions
formerly approved by the court. Tn,
Applications WerG made upon blank
/, used for petitions aftd had the usua
headings for petitions. One Of then
had 10 signatures and the other Is
Any II = ho did not understand ther,
might mistake them tGr petitions. Tn